Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Let's downsize that massive boat a footballer could have got, to a small boat, and use the money on... saving lifes?
That's a bullshit argument and you know it. People are spending money on what they want to spend it on. If they're not spending it on football tickets, they're not about to start spending it on saving lives. They're going to buy something else fun.
What I mean is...
Instead of a man being paid £25 million, he is paid £1 million and the rest is transferred to the state to spend.
Or in othe words, Manchester United make 'y' amount per year, and can only pay 'x' while 'y - x' goes to the government. Like that, but across all high paying industry.
How would that work?! If the company paying him knows that 24 of that 25m are going to the state, they wouldn't pay him 25! They'd pay him 1m and keep the rest for themselves! We need more taxes for higher earners, not a pay cap.
Example: (Let's imagine)
Manchester United make £500 million per year, they spend £400 million.
*A wage cap is brought in*
Manchester United make £500 million per year, they now spend £200 million. The money 'saved', through taxation, increases money going to the state.
So maybe in the short term Manchester United loses out, more teams can afford capped rate players. Sucks for them. Money will be more evenly distributed, anyone can win the league and more money goes to the government in the medium to long term.
What strawberry floating right does the state have to take that money from him? What if the Government told you you didn't need to earn more than £65 per week (the current rate of Jobseekers Allowance for over-25s), and that you should hand over any money that you earn over that?
Well if the government decided that you couldn't do anything about it, could you? Difference being we're talking about a man being deprived of food on one end, and a yacht on the other.
We'll never agree, me and Lagamorph are going to go set up a better state ourselves, albeit with shitter football teams. C'mon Laga.